Investing in a near-zero interest rate environment

The official cash rate has remained at an unprecedented low of 0.1% in response to severe economic weakness caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Expected returns on long-term bonds have also continued to fall with the 10-year government bond yield, which is the rate of return expected from investing in Australian government bonds, falling to 1% per annum in 2020.

Short-term cash rates and long-term bond yields tend to move in the same direction in response to changes to the economic outlook. The current rates, which are reflected in term deposit and mortgage rates, indicate a weak outlook for the Australian economy.

By decreasing the cash rate, the Reserve Bank of Australia aims to stimulate the economy by encouraging spending and investing via low returns on savings and reduced borrowing costs respectively.

What does this mean for investments in bonds, cash and term deposits?
Given the reduction in the official cash rate and fall in bond yields, there is a risk that future returns from these investments will be low and may even be negative.

In the past, falling interest rates have enabled the bonds to perform well with a return of 4.6% per annum over the past five years[i]. However, with interest rates currently at all-time lows, it’s unlikely that they would fall further. Hence, the returns on bonds that we’ve seen previously are not expected to repeat in the foreseeable future.

Similarly, the returns from cash and term deposits have significantly reduced. The average return for cash over the past 10 years has been 2.4% per annumⁱ, but with current rates at such low levels, it is unlikely that we will see these returns repeat in the next 10 years.

What has Australian Catholic Superannuation done about this?

In response to the downward trend in cash rates and bond yields, Australian Catholic Superannuation has reduced its exposure to bonds, cash and term deposits in favour of investments that offer better prospective returns including corporate bonds, bank debt and increasing the Fund’s exposure to equities[ii].

What can I do about it?

You are encouraged to consider your personal circumstances and ensure that your investment decisions are aligned with your tolerance for risk.

If you are a member of Australian Catholic Superannuation and need help with managing your finances, we offer advice on your superannuation investments, contributions or insurance at no additional cost through our limited advice team. Alternatively, we also offer comprehensive advice that looks at a broader range of topics including your finances outside of superannuation. Find out more about our different types of financial advice services or make an appointment today.

If you’re not a member of the Fund but would like to find out more, visit catholicsuper.com.au or contact our award-winning Member Services team today.

Any advice contained on this webpage is of a general nature only, and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Prior to acting on any information on this webpage, you need to take into account your own financial circumstances, consider the Product Disclosure Statement for any product you are considering, and seek independent financial advice if you are unsure of what action to take. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.

[1] Bloomberg AusBond Government Bond Index.

[1] Investment options with a higher percentage of growth assets generally expect higher returns over the long term but have higher risk and are also likely to experience larger fluctuations in returns from year to year and more frequent negative returns.

5 min read

Schools have been through the most turbulent times over the past 18 months. At the mercy of the impact that COVID-19 has had on their communities, they’ve moved in and out of remote learning programs, made significant rearrangements to their spaces and practices to ensure social distancing and hygiene measures, and had constant changes to planned academic and social events that mark significant moments throughout the year (think exams, graduations, open nights).

The scope and impact of the disruption and uncertainty have been unprecedented in the history of schooling.

Right now, hundreds of schools have just returned to term three under remote learning arrangements due to the Sydney lockdown in NSW, and Victorian students had barely begun term three before being forced home amid the state’s fifth lockdown.

While these schools are dealing with lockdowns, many other school leaders and teachers across the country are holding their breath as they start term three, hoping plans for learning and social activities won’t be in vain if the pandemic once agin takes hold in their communities.

Read more: A social dilemma: The heavy burden on schools during lockdown

Last year, I spoke with eight school leaders in Melbourne during the lengthy lockdown periods in 2020. This research showed how the circumstances of uncertainty and disruption to normal modes of practice influenced their work.

In the absence of usual processes, school leaders engaged in rapid sense-making and adaptation to keep up with the pace of change. I spoke to them in the middle of 2020, when less was known about the health, economic, social and educational impacts of the virus, and everyone was scrambling to find solutions to unprecedented problems.

I asked them about the ways their work in schools had been impacted by these drastic changes, and they identified several key areas.

Connection to community

Leading into, through, and out of lockdowns heightened leaders’ relationships with their communities. They spoke of how they were turned to as calm and authoritative voices during times of confusion, especially in those weeks just before and at the start of the first lockdowns, and the initiation of remote schooling.

What you realise really quickly in times like this is that you’re actually a community leader. What I mean by that is outside of sort of a political voice that our members of parliament have. It seems that the next voice that many community members go to, particularly families, is to school leaders. – Danni, government secondary school principal

As the lockdown rolled on, and the complexities of social, economic and welfare issues permeated the schools, the leaders described how they needed to draw on deep wells of optimism, and display a confident, resilient stance for their communities.

My role is as a community leader, and reminding myself that I’m leading a community of people – the families, the staff and their families – and ensuring that I’m doing the best to spread a positive attitude. The glass is half-full. We will get through this. – Frank, government primary school principal

The participants felt that in many ways the shared experience of the crisis strengthened their communities. There was a sense of “we’re all in this together” (Katrina, government primary school principal) as the school worked together to find solutions and to support those who were struggling the most.

Crucial communication

Finding ways to communicate within the remote learning and socially distanced circumstances was a key focus for these leaders. It was essential that new modes and schedules were developed to disseminate key information, and to keep community members connected.

In the earliest weeks, regular and clear communications were vital. School leaders were collating and interpreting information from many sources, and their aim was always to share it in ways that decreased ambiguity and confusion.

Clarity of communication was really important ... We set up the communication channels, because there was so much confusion, and so many questions ... We just took direction from whatever came out, and kept everything clear. A single source of truth. – Kate, independent school head

These leaders also found that by being honest about what they did and didn’t know was important.

We just took a stance for our school of just being open and honest, and transparent, right from the very start ... That’s what I found was the biggest thing, really, just that regular, really regular communication, and just really honest. I said to parents, ‘As soon as I know, you’ll know’, and that’s what I did, and I got a lot of positive feedback from parents around that. They felt that they knew everything, because we were being so open with them. – Katrina, government primary school principal

They found themselves explaining that their decisions were based on current circumstances, and that adjustments might be necessary as the situation developed.

They found most people understood that with the urgency of the crisis unfolding, a pretty good decision in time (that might need later adjustment) was better than waiting too long.

I just decided I could put my own message out, and then if I had to change it when [more information] came out, I would change it. And I think that’s just being on the forefront of communication. I think because everyone was, ‘We’re all in together, we’re all learning’, I think it showed everyone that we’re all learners in a school. – Narelle, government primary school principal

Care and compassion

The strongest message from all those I spoke to was just how all-encompassing and important wellbeing became during these challenging times. They explained how amplified the caring and compassionate aspects of leading became.

They developed systems and practices to “check in” with students, families and staff.

They became acutely aware of those who were struggling, and found the best solutions possible to help them. This included things such as arranging food hampers for families without income, supporting teachers with young children at home to manage their online teaching commitments, or making sure to have a one-on-one conversation every few days with a staff member who lived alone.

Read more: New-world education: What's needed to lead schools into the future

They shared that their interactions through these times were not necessarily about solving problems or fixing issues, but rather offering space for teachers, parents and students to be heard.

One said this regarding the teachers he was supporting:

There were a lot of conversations where teachers really just spoke about how tiring it is, and ultimately you really just need to listen to that ... and acknowledging, and saying, “Make sure that when you do get that opportunity, you do take a break, or do something that you really love once a day”, or whatever it might be. – Kaleb, independent school head

This time to connect and acknowledge it was OK to find things challenging was part of the message many school leaders wove into their work at this time.

They reverted to the core safety, wellbeing and relational purposes of schools. They understood that everyone was finding their way in unfamiliar times, as Danni explained in relation to her teaching staff:

Looking after the wellbeing of staff in these unique times is central to the success of what schools were trying to achieve ... That we humanise what they do again, and they’re not some sort of robots on a device that can just be turned on and off … They’re experiencing the same level of angst that a whole society is and, you know, really allowing that “humanness” to be part of their practice, and talk about it. – Danni, government secondary school principal

The price, possibilities, and potential

School leaders identified the workload and emotional challenges they, and others, experienced throughout the lockdowns.

I’d say the last three months is the hardest I’ve ever worked … because they were just emotionally draining… It’s that constant switched-on. We’ve been switched-on, switched-on, switched-on, switched-on. Worrying about staff, students, parents, education, the department, the community, everything, the whole time. Make a decision, make a decision, worry about this person, phone that person. It’s been very reactionary, which is not the way most of us work in this role. So, I think that’s the fatigue that I’m feeling – my brain needs to switch off now, and my body needs to rest. – Katrina, government primary school principal

Despite this, leaders expressed positivity and hopefulness when asked what had been learnt from the experiences of schooling in 2020. They noted the emergence of a new attitude towards change.

Despite exhaustion from the pace and pressure of remote learning changes, the experiences of teachers had expanded perceptions of what was possible in their work.

When I spoke to Dave, in between the two major Melbourne lockdowns, he described that teachers were excited about this new sense of potential:

It feels like now actually there’s a bunch of people that have come back and gone, “Actually, I want to do some stuff now”. I feel like there’s a little bit more appetite for it … A lot of people have come back and they’ve been like, “I’ve been in my hole this whole time, and I haven’t been able to get anything going”, and their desire to push change in school has now built up. – Dave, government secondary school assistant principal

This potential was complemented by the relationships that had developed with families, and the acceptance of change. Together, school leaders, teachers, students and parents had shaped the home learning programs through a process of implementation, feedback and adaptation.

This made schooling more visible to families, and also developed a culture of trust that had grown through the remote learning experiences.

Read more: Educational leadership and COVID-19: ASEAN reflections on continuity, community and innovation

School leaders described how this offered potential for future, more innovative and agile practices in their schools.

There’s been a real flurry of people wanting to try other things, and it being OK. Implement something, [and] if it doesn’t work, pull it back or you modify it. And it’s that agile thinking that has really come to the forefront within all the staff. – Narelle, government school primary principal

All these school leaders described the complexity and importance of their work during the COVID-19 Melbourne lockdowns of 2020.

To lead their communities through it, they prioritised compassionate, humanising goals that grounded everything they did. They made sense in confusing times, and they communicated in ways that were reassuring and positive, as well as open and honest.

Promisingly, the leaders underlined the resilience of our school communities, as they optimistically looked to a post-pandemic future that will build on what was learnt through the unprecedented disruptions.

This piece is a summary of a recently-published paper, ‘Leading in lockdown: Community, communication and compassion in response to the COVID-19 crisis’. 

This article was first published on Monash Lens. Read the original article

10 min read

The announcement of the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review (QITER) and publication of the expert group’s discussion paper reminded some in the initial teacher education (ITE) and research communities of the continuing influence of England on Australian education policy as well as this country’s own unique history of a hundred and one damnations in teacher education reform. The QITER discussion paper refers to English innovations such as  Now Teach as well as to policy documents like the 2015 Carter Review. And the QITER expert panel has met with their English equivalents, according to panel members at a recent Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE) event.

 Since that ACDE event, the English panel, tasked with conducting a review of the ‘ITE market’, has published its report. The panel proposes dismantling much of England’s ITE infrastructure, forcing all providers to be reaccredited from scratch (to financially unviable criteria and unrealistic timelines); mandating 28 weeks’ placement in schools in all 38-week postgraduate ITE courses; and requiring absolute compliance with a government-prescribed curriculum – the Core Content Framework – under threat of dis-accreditation through inspections by the government’s schools inspectorate. Despite having demonstrated high quality ITE provision over at least the last ten years, according to the government’s own data, it is now possible for universities and school-based providers to fail inspections on the basis of what some of their staff believe and say in interviews with inspectors (there is no observation of training). Indeed, in the last few weeks, courses have started to fail because of what some people believe about teaching and programs have closed.

Unsurprisingly, these proposals shocked the sector and have led to unprecedented collective opposition: from all types of ITE provider (indeed, the response from school-based trainers has been the strongest); the UK Chartered College of Teaching; teacher unions; and individual professionals. Some high-profile universities like Cambridge have intimated they will close their courses. In an interview with Times Higher Education, Jo-Anne Baird, director of Oxford University’s Department of Education, said ‘I don’t know any university that would be able to create a model that runs counter to the principles of academic freedom.’ Even leaders of so-called ‘Teaching School Hubs’, likely to benefit from the proposals, have ‘expressed fury’ at the government’s response.

 So, in these last few weeks, especially, I wasn’t surprised that colleagues in Australia, noticing what they describe as ‘similar voices’ here, have asked me, as a relatively recent arrival in Melbourne  from London, whether what is happening in the UK could happen here? 

My answer has been ‘no, at least not yet’ and this is why.

First, England is not the UK. Historically, Scotland has always had greater independence in education and, since political devolution in 1999, Wales has been developing its own distinctive education system that is largely autonomous. So, my summary of the current state of ITE pertains to England only. We are not talking about comparisons with ‘UK policy’ but considering Australia (crucially, a federation) in relation to one out of the four UK jurisdictions.  And what has gone on in England, as I will explain, makes it an international outlier - or aberration, depending on your point of view.

Since 2010, the school system in England has become increasingly ‘academised’ – meaning the majority of secondary schools and increasingly large numbers of primary schools are either directly controlled by the education minister for England or controlled by that minister through an intermediary trust (a ‘multi-academy trust’). Local government has been marginalised to the extent that it now has few residual powers. England therefore has a highly centralised school system in terms of lines of accountability; schools are ultimately directly controlled by the education minister. These centralising, controlling policies come from a different branch of British conservatism to the one that has historically emphasised small government.

 This degree of tight control over a national school system is fundamental to understanding ITE reforms in England and what is possible in Australia. To create the conditions for the English situation to be replicated here, a new constitutional settlement between the states and the Commonwealth would be essential so that Mr Tudge and his successors directly control all Australian government schools. 

Control over schools in England – cleverly presented by Conservatives as an opportunity for a ‘school-led’ system – is critically important in explaining is the situation in England because when the state controls school funding, the curriculum and assessment, teachers’ professional standards, in-service professional development and qualifications, it is a comparatively small (if significant) step to then control how teachers are trained.

 Secondly, the distinctive context for the English ‘ITE Market Review’ has been produced in part by the abolition of virtually all autonomous, non-governmental regulatory or deliberative bodies (known as ‘QUANGOS’) in education in England following the 2010 general election. Justified by austerity policies following the global financial crisis, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the National College of Teaching and Leadership and others were all abolished by the education minister, Michael Gove, alongside then special advisor, Dominic Cummings, an architect of the Vote Leave (Brexit) campaign.

In the Political Economy of Teacher Education (PETE) project, my colleagues and I drew on the work of Jennifer Wolch to describe the abolition of these agencies as ‘selective dismantling’ of key institutions that provide democratic oversight and scrutiny. As we pointed out, such selective dismantling ‘reduces opportunities for public deliberation and accountability while strengthening the decision-making powers of policymakers’. Governance structures, professional regulation and accreditation, curriculum and assessment policies, funding – are all now owned by the ministry – the Department for Education – right across England, with few exceptions. One exception is Ofsted (the schools inspectorate) that also inspects all ITE providers. However, in addition to being seen less as an independent agency than a tool of enforcement for party-political purposes, Ofsted has also been empowered to conduct ‘research’ that becomes an integral part of justifying policy. Concerns over the quality of Ofsted’s ‘research’ reached a peak recently concerning its review of Mathematics teaching when authors of several studies cited asked for the review to be withdrawn over misappropriations of their research.

Additionally, a national inspection agency would be needed, with right of entry to all government schools and all universities and powers of dis-accreditation. And finally, that inspection agency would have to be controlled by the federal minister and the agency led by a political appointee who, even if they didn’t gain the approval of parliament, as would normally be expected, would nonetheless be empowered by the minister.

 In addition to these structural differences, the cultural, political and economic contexts for education in England have also developed along highly distinctive lines, something we identified in the PETE project as a new political economy of teacher development, In 2016, Verger, Fontdevila & Zancajo characterised English education policy as ‘privatisation as state reform’ where ‘public sector monopolies’ had to be marketised to be made more efficient and radical policy interventions were justified by ‘crisis frames’. In our early work in the PETE project we aligned ITE policy reforms in England with the loose coalition of interests known as the GERM – the Global Education Reform Movement. Under this analysis – and consistent with Wolch’s research on outsourcing public services to the private sector – a market of new entrepreneurial, private providers would emerge that would challenge ‘vested interest’ legacy institutions such as universities.

Innovation would come through market disruption.

However, what has happened in England – or, at least, has become more obvious – is that successive governments have not primarily intended to create a market of any kind; there has been no genuine interest in new forms of enterprise and competition. Their intention has not been merely to create what Wolch called a ‘shadow state’ – an assemblage of multiple non-state providers functioning in a (quasi-) market ‘administered outside of traditional democratic politics’.

 Rather, for these Conservative governments, the ‘market model’, as Wendy Brown observed, is just familiar narrative cover for increasing state control. 

Since 2010, reaching its apex in the recommendations of the latest report on ITE, England has experienced the heightening of the fundamental ‘free market/strong state’ contradiction in modern British conservatism where an absolute commitment to restoring/sustaining (often regressive) cultural traditions and traditional forms of authority has trumped free market principles and libertarian instincts and has done so in increasingly authoritarian ways.

Distinctively, too, English education ministers have relied on a very small number of individuals (a few teachers, current and former, often with very limited classroom time, usually active on Twitter, and one with unsuccessful experience as a nightclub bouncer; some chief execs of those multi-academy trusts; and always, always the same professor) upon whom they have bestowed political patronage, a sub-set of whom have also been funded to compete with legacy providers like universities or traditional education entrepreneurs. In the PETE project, we characterised these types of organisations as ‘co-created shadow state structures’ as they arose out of the meeting of the needs of an authoritarian state with the entrepreneurial instincts of some of those in receipt of political patronage. In our analysis of one policy intervention in 2017, for example, we found one organisation had won the largest proportion of the available funding for teacher CPL despite the fact that it didn’t exist at the time of the tender and had no track record.

Again, for similar conditions for ITE reform to exist in Australia, a different kind of conservatism would have to be dominant in policy-making, similar to the variety that has taken control of education in England. My limited experience of Australian politics suggests that while cultural restorationism and authoritarianism are not entirely absent from politics here, what tends to dominate are more classical liberal models that value ideals of small government, free markets and personal liberty. 

That’s not to say that traditionalism and authoritarian statist instincts, in the way that Poulantzas conceptualised them, do not have influence but they are not determining education policy in quite the comprehensive and urgent way that they are in England.

Finally and crucially, ITE providers in England – including, perhaps especially, the universities - lost the arguments about teacher education a long time ago, largely because they were not present in them. 

The organisation representing universities involved in ITE in England went along with the general direction of reforms and only recently seems to have woken up to the fact that it is now ‘do or die’ for the sector. 

Additionally, sector leaders in England, often in the research intensive universities, prioritised research performance and league tables and were prepared to proletarianise teacher educators (and I use that word technically) in pursuit of ‘research excellence’, as Jane McNicholl and I showed. What has been missing in the years leading up to the current crisis in England are confident, non-defensive voices arguing the case both for genuine diversity of provision and innovation in ITE and for building strong research programmes in teacher education, just as would be the aspiration in any other area of research. Universities, especially, if they believed they had a strong contribution to make to ITE and that, as universities, that contribution was partly in the form of research and innovation, failed to make it happen in England.

In discussing what might happen in ITE in Australia, I have met a few people who have argued vigorously for a more ‘joined-up’ education system here. I have heard frustration that good ideas emerging from the Commonwealth government are not picked up by states and that children and young people do not always get the education they deserve. One or two have even said to me they wished Australia was following the example of England in both the direction, coherence and pace of reform. My response has been ‘be careful of what you wish for’. Australia needs to aim a lot higher than England when looking for good ideas to influence innovation here. There are excellent examples of evidence-based interventions elsewhere in the world that can improve the quality of teaching. We need to look up, not down, we can’t be complacent, and we shouldn’t let the empire strike back. 

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.

7 min read

Despite the promise to ‘improve clarity’, ‘declutter’, and remove ‘ambiguous’ content, the new draft curriculum has left teachers guessing when it comes to when, and how, to use texts in the first two years of school. The requirement for teachers to choose between two types of texts remains in the proposed new curriculum, revealing a lack of understanding by the curriculum developers about the purpose and structure of each text. 

In the first two years of school, children require many opportunities to practise their phonics skills, which is achieved by reading decodable texts. Predictable texts, in comparison, are incompatible with phonics instruction and do not support beginning readers to master the written code for reading. Once the code has been established, children can move on to a broader range of reading material. If ACARA’s objective for the proposed curriculum is to provide ‘a clear and precise developmental pathway' for reading, then references to predictable texts, and any reading strategies that require children to guess words from pictures and context, need to be removed from the current content descriptions where learning to read is the focus. 

Research we recently conducted revealed that there is confusion among teachers on how to use different types of texts in beginning reading instruction, which the current review of the national curriculum does little to address. While the draft curriculum signals a win for those advocating for more emphasis on systematic phonics instruction, the continued reference to predictable texts, and the associated whole language strategies known as the three-cueing system, is seen as a missed opportunity to align all reading related content to an established body of scientific knowledge. 

The Australian Curriculum National Reporting Authority’s (ACARA) chief, David de Carvalho claims that the draft curriculum English “allows teachers to choose a range of texts” to support the development of critical reading skills while also promoting the broader motivational and literary aspects of reading. However, rather than providing choice, the continued lack of guidance and clarification about when and how to use each text serves only to keep teachers guessing. Ironically, ‘guessing’ is one of the strategies that beginning readers must default to when trying to read words from texts that are not instructionally matched to the classroom phonics program. The features and structure of predictable texts, the earliest readers in many levelled reading systems currently used in Australian classrooms, promote memorisation rather than decoding and encourage beginning readers to guess words from pictures and context. Research has repeatedly shown that these strategies are not sustainable in the long term and that it is poor readers who are most disadvantaged when pictures are removed from the text and the capacity to memorise words reaches its limits.  

Text types

It is not so much choice that teachers require to meet the instructional needs of children, but the knowledge about how to use different texts for different purposes. Research has identified two sets of processes involved in reading proficiency: language comprehension and decoding. While literature facilitates the development of language related skills such as vocabulary and comprehension, and decodable texts scaffold children’s mastery of the alphabetic code, predictable texts contribute very little once children commence formal reading instruction. A clearly articulated curriculum would facilitate teachers’ ability to determine when to use a particular text for a particular purpose. 

Survey on teachers use of texts

The results of our research draw attention to this issue of how teachers use different types of texts to support beginning reading development. We surveyed 138 Western Australian Pre-primary and Year 1 teachers because we were concerned that the guidance on approaches to reading instruction and text types in the current curriculum was ambiguous and confusing. 

Teachers were asked about the approach they used to teach phonics, the type of texts and the strategies they used when teaching reading, and their beliefs about decodable and predictable texts. In Western Australia, teachers are directed by the Department of Education (DoE) to use systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) and, in our study, 93% of the teachers reported that they taught phonics using a SSP approach. 

On the basis of this approach to reading, we expected an equivalent number of teachers to use decodable texts. Surprisingly, a majority of teachers (56%) reported using both predictable and decodable texts to support children’s reading development. Of the teachers who only used decodable texts (25%), all but two used a range of strategies more suited to predictable texts. 

As expected, teachers who only used predictable texts (18%) used prompts associated with these texts, but they also used strategies more suitable for decodable text such as asking children to ‘sound out each letter’. This could be confusing for children when reading a text that doesn’t include words that can be read using current alphabetic knowledge.  Predictable texts feature high frequency (e.g., girl, where, as) and multisyllabic words (e.g., doctor, balloon, helicopter) that reflect common and relatable themes for young children, rather than words that align with a phonics teaching sequence. 

Fluency and texts

Two-thirds of the teachers in our research agreed with the statement that predictable texts promote fluency. This belief possibly accounts for the fact that so many teachers used predictable texts despite using a systematic synthetic phonics approach. While there is some evidence to suggest that predictable texts facilitate the development of fluency, the relationship is not well understood. 

When children first apply their knowledge of phonics to decodable texts, fluency does initially appear to be compromised.  Learning to read is hard work, and it takes at least two years of reading instruction before children reach a level of proficiency where they are able to apply their skills to the broader curriculum, or to what is commonly known as ‘reading to learn’. 

In contrast, the repetition of high frequency words and the predictive nature of words and sentences in predictable texts gives the impression that children are reading fluently as they memorise sentences that can be recited both while reading, and in the absence of the text. While alluring to teachers, the promotion of these strategies compromises the development of the alphabetic knowledge required for reading a complex orthography such as English, and as such should not be prioritised over careful and accurate decoding, despite the temptation to do so! 

A lack of fluency when learning a new skill is evident in many areas of learning, yet it seems to be less well tolerated in beginning reading instruction.  One possible explanation for this is the dominance of whole language reading theories, upon which the idea that learning to read is as natural as learning to speak has been promoted. This has resulted in the proliferation of a range of instructional reading strategies that are no longer supported by research, but as our research showed, continued to be used by classroom teachers.  It is our contention that the continued use of these strategies is a direct result of the ambiguity evident in the curriculum documents. It has simply not kept up with the research and will continue to act as a barrier to effective implementation unless clarity around the use of texts is provided. 

Which books, and when?

Children learn about the correspondence between speech and print by being exposed to books from an early age. At the pre-reading stage, prior to knowing that letters can also represent print, and that there is a predictable relationship between them, children benefit from being read to from a wide range of books, including children’s literature that features predictable text. There are many great examples to choose from, including well known classics such as Brown Bear, Brown Bear, and We Went Walking. 

When teachers read books with rhythmic patterned language, children begin to understand that each printed word on the page represents a spoken word. This helps children to understand the segmental nature of speech, a valuable first step in their reading journey.  The predictable texts currently used by teachers to meet Foundation and Year one curriculum objectives, while far less engaging than children’s literature, are more appropriate for children who are at this stage of their reading development because they do not require children to actually use their knowledge of the alphabet to read. While teachers can, and should, continue to read children’s literature, including books with predictable text and rhyming patterns to children beyond the preschool years, there is no instructional value in using ‘levelled’ predictable readers to support children’s development once formal reading instruction has commenced. 

When children enter the alphabetic stage of reading, they must transition from being read to, and joining in, to becoming the reader of the text. During this stage, children benefit from text that supports decoding as a primary strategy for reading. Decodable texts have a specific purpose: to scaffold children’s mastery and application of the alphabetic code in reading. Once children have mastered the alphabetic code, the reading of natural language texts, with more diverse vocabulary and complex language structures, should be encouraged. It is crucial from this point that motivation for reading is maintained. 

The disconnect between the use of text and the teaching approach being employed as well as the inconsistent use of strategies to support children when reading evident in our research can be seen as a direct result of the requirement in the curriculum to use both decodable and predictable texts. It is likely that without a change to the current curriculum, this will continue to be the case. 

DISCLOSURE: Simmone Pogorzelski is a product developer for MultiLit Pty Ltd which develops decodable readers, and other reading materials.

References

Cheatham, J. P., & Allor, J. H. (2012). The influence of decodability in early reading text on reading achievement: a  review of the evidence. Reading and Writing, 25(9), 2223-2246. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9355-2

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, Findings, and Issues. Scientific Studies of Reading,   9(2), 167-188. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4

Hempenstall, K. (2003). The three-cueing system : trojan horse? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(2), 15–23.

Mesmer, H. A. (2005). Text decodability and the first-grade reader. Reading & Writing   Quarterly, 21(1), 61-86. doi:10.1080/10573560590523667

Pogorzelski, S., Main, S. & Hill, S. (2021). A survey of Western Australian teachers' use of texts in supporting beginning readers. Issues in Educational Research, 31(1), 204-223. http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/pogorzelski.pdf

This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters. Read the original article.

5 min read

Hundreds of thousands of children around Australia, in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, are this week taking part in the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests. This suite of testing requires students to sit four tests of reading, writing, language conventions (spelling, grammar and punctuation), and numeracy.

Last year, NAPLAN was cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s disruption to Australian schools. The cancellation of this high-stakes testing program was just one of the many changes, challenges and disruptions to education in 2020.

As we venture into a post-pandemic world, we need to reflect on what we’ve learned.

An important question raised by the events of the past year is: What’s the promise and price paid by our school systems, children, educators and families for NAPLAN, particularly in its current form?

NAPLAN: The promise and the price

The stated purposes for NAPLAN have developed over time, but in sum, as stated in the 2020 federal review of NAPLAN, they included “monitoring progress towards national goals, school system accountability and performance, school improvement, individual student learning achievement and growth, and information for parents/carers on school and student performance”.

A survey of high-performing schooling systems across the OECD revealed no common assessment practices. For example, New Zealand and Scotland both employ “only sample assessments to monitor the education system”, combined with teachers’ professional judgements (2020 federal review, p9).

In the past decade, a focus on how schools, teachers and students perform has intensified. A major reason for this is the 2010 decision to publish NAPLAN test results on the My School website. It allowed inter-school comparisons, and was a crucial factor in weaponising competition between government and non-government education sectors, and between various states.

Annual results from NAPLAN tests are analysed and compared. Resulting data and trends are prioritised over richer sources of information, and used to make judgements of systems, schools and teachers.

Read more: Taking the lead from successful social cohesion in schools

Since its introduction in 2008, the increased reliance on NAPLAN results to inform education policy and practice has coincided with a decline in the relative performance of Australia on global league tables. Although this may imply correlation and not necessarily causation, there is evidence that NAPLAN has been counterproductive in its aim to raise achievement (details of which are included in the 2020 federal review of NAPLAN).

Beyond its failings in regard to academic achievement, NAPLAN has also had a series of highly detrimental unintended consequences. A national study of more than 8000 teachers revealed:

• narrowing of teaching strategies and of the curriculum
• negative impacts on student health and wellbeing
• negative impacts on staff morale
• negative impacts on school reputation, and capacity to attract and retain students and staff.

Our research also exposed the impact of these unintended consequences. Our 2019 survey of more than 2400 teachers showed their experiences of NAPLAN’s negative effects. The comment below from one teacher summed up many of the responses:

NAPLAN is one of the worst things we can do. It sets off school against school and parents against schools. We should be training children for the future and allow them more time for creative things as well as reading, writing and maths.

Teachers and school leaders are impacted by associated performance pressures, which contribute to excessive workload, stress and ill-health. Many noted that this was contributing to them considering leaving the profession.

Unless significant changes happen to improve workload … and getting rid of NAPLAN, I’ll probably look at other career paths/alternatives. – Teacher, 2019

NAPLAN and student wellbeing

Child and youth mental health is a crucial concern in our communities. Research from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) showed that, when compared to the 38 richest countries in the world, Australia’s children and young people are experiencing some of the lowest levels of wellbeing and mental health.

In a project in which we surveyed almost 100 Victorian public school leaders, the majority of respondents felt that mental health was the most concerning social issue facing their school, and that this had increased over the past five years. Concern about the prevalence of anxiety, exacerbated by high-stakes testing, was noted.

[There are] increasing numbers of students, staff and parents experiencing anxiety [and there is] increased focus and belief that testing is highly important, at the expense of time for teaching wellbeing-focused skills and behaviours. – School leader, 2020

Previous research has shown the link between NAPLAN testing and decreased student wellbeing. Concerns about the effects of NAPLAN on student wellbeing have been raised by parents and educators alike.

In their statement explaining the cancellation of NAPLAN 2020, the Education Council (a committee of state and federal education ministers) said: “The decision to not proceed with NAPLAN in 2020 has been taken to assist school leaders, teachers and support staff to focus on the wellbeing of students.”

Their recognition of this issue last year was a well-received acknowledgment of the extra challenges that COVID-19 posed to student wellbeing and youth mental health. But as we have discussed, even without COVID-19, child and youth mental health is a significant concern.

We know that NAPLAN itself has detrimental impacts on the wellbeing of students, so why are we bringing it back in its current form when concerns about wellbeing and mental health are more pressing than ever?

Community and connection come first

Despite its challenges, 2020 provided an opportunity to learn many important lessons about education and schooling.

Through several of our research projects in 2020, we heard from students, families and school leaders. A survey of more than 200 Year 12 students told us about the challenges they had faced:

Nothing has been easy. As a matter of fact, online learning has made Year 12 10 times more difficult and stressful. – Year 12 student, 2020

There's a lot more discussion about HSC, toxic school academic culture, as these factors of stress have been hugely compounded by COVID. – Year 12 student 2020

But we also heard about the importance of the support from teachers and connection with school:

[Teachers] went out of their way to be available to us students when we needed them via multiple different communication platforms. – Year 12 student 2020

Read more: A social dilemma: The heavy burden on schools during lockdown

In our 2020 survey of a representative sample of the Australian population for our perceptions of schooling study, we found that public support for the work of schools and teachers increased throughout the pandemic. Families and communities felt more connected to schools as they saw teaching and learning unfolding before their eyes at home.

In interviews with school leaders in nine Melbourne schools last year, we heard how schools managed the conditions of lockdowns. When communities were faced with heightened uncertainty and confusion, the work of principals became even more important.

My role is as a community leader, and reminding myself that I’m leading a community of people: the families, the staff, and ensuring that I’m doing the best to spread a positive attitude – the glass is half full, we will get through this. – Principal, 2020

It was clear that belonging and connection are the pillars that underpin schooling, and that in 2020, NAPLAN in its current form was not missed.

A common theme across our research with students, families and school leaders during 2020 was that when all the normal arrangements and structures of schooling were stripped away, the key focus was wellbeing and relationships:

We deferred to think about the wellbeing concerns first, which was really, really important, and certainly not lost on any teachers at our school. Certainly, wellbeing is paramount amongst schools. – School leader, 2020

We’re just trying to, I guess, garner some smiles from our kids. – School leader, 2020

It was clear that belonging and connection are the pillars that underpin schooling, and that in 2020, NAPLAN in its current form was not missed.

Reimagining schooling without NAPLAN

The disruptions of 2020 provided a rare moment to reimagine what schools can and should be.

If we want to move to more productive and holistic post-COVID education in our country, we should rethink NAPLAN in its current form and focus on what matters. This includes:

1. Shifting NAPLAN to be a sample assessment, rather than assessing entire student cohorts. This would enable monitoring of system trends over time, and was suggested by the federal review as a possible solution to address some of the negative consequences of NAPLAN.

2. Valuing a rich repertoire of assessments with teachers’ professional judgements being the basis of reporting to parents and students. Sample assessments such as NAPLAN that monitor the education system can be included, but should be “used only by schools and teachers as one piece of evidence contributing to reports to parents/carers, students and local education authorities”. (2020 federal review of NAPLAN, p10).

3. The removal of the My School website. Its detrimental impacts that allow league tables of schools to be assembled has perverted and distorted the fundamental purpose of our education systems.

4. Fair funding. Among OECD nations, Australia has a highly inequitable system of public education funding. A fairer system of funding that provides the resources and support that all students need to maximise their potential would improve achievement and social outcomes for every community across the country.

5. Trust teachers and school leaders. NAPLAN and the associated focus on narrow measures of achievement have resulted in reduced trust in the professionalism and quality of our educators. Believing in their abilities and trusting in their expertise to know their students would lift the learning of all students in the best ways for them, not just for their test scores.

6. Listen to students. With disengagement and mental ill-health at concerning levels, we need to put more time and resources into understanding the experiences of students in our schools.

In 2020, school communities survived without NAPLAN. They taught, they assessed, they reported, and – most importantly – they supported. From that lesson, we should reimagine the testing regime so that schools and students can be supported to thrive.

This article was first published on Monash Lens. Read the original article

5 min read

As the pandemic took its toll on nations around the globe, educators looked for novel ways to engage their students, both academically and psychologically. It goes without saying that COVID-19 impacted humanity in a physical manner, with some countries recording deaths in the many thousands.

How do we keep school going in a time of such uncertainty?

This dilemma is real for any student, but more so for those with additional learning needs. Students with additional needs in mainstream classrooms, especially those with diagnosed disabilities, were accustomed to receiving support from their teacher, and often from a teaching assistant or an educational support officer.

During the pandemic, this form of support was significantly reduced, as many people began to work from home, and there were competing demands on time. The learning programs of students with disabilities had to be supervised and managed by their parents, often with no background information or preparation.

What could parents – and, indeed, teachers – do during this time in order to facilitate learning?

Perhaps the most essential aspect to consider was the students’ well-being and psychological stability. Without this, it’s unlikely any form of learning would have followed, or would have had any positive impact on student outcomes.

Here, we outline some of the strategies utilised by educators from three countries, aligning with an online symposium held earlier this year, to acknowledge the work of teachers under challenging circumstances.

All the academics involved in this endeavour recognised that teachers were keen to support their students’ psychological wellbeing rather than push ahead with completing the curriculum. It was certainly a case of “Maslow before Bloom”.

AUSTRALIA

An important element of schooling during the government-imposed lockdowns in Victoria was the need to create communities even in the previously alien online classroom. Developing accessible platforms where students could meet using the available technology became vital in fostering and consolidating social interaction.

Within these communal settings, it was important to acknowledge and celebrate even small milestones so that students felt motivated and aspired to do better.

Without the social support of their peers, many would have experienced disconnection from their school community, resulting in reduced effort and limited output. By bonding students through the involvement of parents and other personalised learning support personnel, classrooms became vibrant online spaces.

Not every day was glamorous, and there were evident challenges. However, the key was to continue nurturing by forging these supportive networks. Education support staff were used creatively in order to facilitate one-on-one teaching and focused conversations with individual students. Perhaps schooling during the pandemic actually created a level playing field for every student, since they were all behind screens, and felt the impact of being detached from their peers and their teachers.

BRUNEI

Our colleague, Dr Siti Norhedayah Abdul Latif, from the Universiti Brunei Darussalam, shared her ideas on how online learning guidelines were developed for students with additional learning needs.

She reflected on the development of a school operation protocol matrix (SOPM) as a specific guideline to facilitate the learning programs of students with additional learning needs. This matrix proved fundamental to educational implementation during the pandemic, and ensured a degree of equity for students with disabilities interacting in the online learning spaces.

Schooling was reduced to four days per week, allowing a more intensive focus, and affording students and teachers appropriate recovery time. The return to school was gradual, as the psychological needs of students became paramount, rather than strictly meeting the academic outcomes.

Individual education plans were adapted to suit online delivery, and additional online and home learning packages were developed to assist parents, who became surrogate teachers during online schooling. This ensured a degree of continuity.

A school-based team (SBT) was created, comprising the parent, principal, and the special education teacher, which facilitated the delivery of content in the online learning space.

Training was provided by the special education unit at the Brunei Darussalam Teacher Academy, covering topics such as using the appropriate technology, and ensuring some cohesion between classroom and online learning.

---

Read more: Educational leadership and COVID-19: ASEAN reflections on continuity, community and innovation

---

Among the lessons learnt from the pandemic are that none of us should become complacent, as a return to online learning could come at any time.

Moreover, the creative methods used by teachers during this period were inspirational. In the future, it’s anticipated teachers could be trained on how to use assistive technologies to facilitate online learning and teaching more effectively.

It was heartening to see that parents were highly engaged with the learning process for children with additional needs, and were keen to support them as best they could on the home front.

Ultimately, this improved parent-teacher relationships, which in turn had positive consequences for the educational programming of students with additional learning needs.

VIETNAM

Professor Tuan Huynh, from the Vietnam National University, highlighted the provisions implemented in his country regarding the learning programs of those with additional learning needs.

He acknowledged the vulnerability of students with disabilities, and of minority ethnic groups, as they faced the online learning and teaching challenges. This was exacerbated by geographical location and economic disadvantage, as many students live in mountainous regions, and were separated from urban schooling.

About 7.8% – eight million people – of the Vietnamese population have diagnosed disabilities. Children with disabilities are free to attend mainstream schools thanks to laws passed in 1997, which give equal access to education for all students.

Philosophically, Vietnam embraces inclusive education – several elements of the curriculum and of physical schools have been adapted to accommodate students with disabilities.

Vietnam is often acknowledged to be a foreigner in regard to inclusive education in the ASEAN region. In reality, as in most settings in the region, it’s a challenge to equitably accommodate students with disabilities.

There needs to be a focus on improving education policy, and a rethinking of fundamental infrastructure to provide equitable schooling opportunities for students with disabilities and additional learning needs.

During remote learning, there were fears that online schooling would result in marginalisation of children with disabilities. They appeared to face varying levels of disadvantage, most aligned with social descriptions and reactions regarding disability.

Moving forward, there needs to be a focus on improving education policy, and a rethinking of fundamental infrastructure to provide equitable schooling opportunities for students with disabilities and additional learning needs.

Nationwide research is needed to drive these opportunities, and educational programming should ensure there are attitudinal society shifts in relation to disability. Enhanced awareness, and a more inclusive society that moves beyond empathy and philanthropy, is integral to equitable practices.

The challenge remains

Inclusive education remains a challenge – we’ve realised it’s not a destination, but a journey. It’s the process that matters, as we equip, empower and enable our students, regardless of ability or disability, to find their places in the world.

Throughout these difficult times, our focus was certainly on psychological needs rather than academic outcomes.

It was a case of Maslow before Bloom.

This article was first published on Monash Lens. Read the original article